Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Menard,
Inc. d/b/a Menards v. John Zuccarini
Claim
Number: FA0202000104558
PARTIES
Complainant is Menard, Inc., d/b/a Menards, Eau
Claire, WI (“Complainant”) represented by Stephen
R. Baird, of Fish & Richardson. Respondent is John Zuccarini, Nassau, NP (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at
issue is <mennards.com>,
registered with Joker.com.
PANEL
The undersigned
certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of
his knowledge, has no known conflict
in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin as
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted
a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on February
6, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on February 7, 2002.
On February 8, 2002, Joker.com
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <mennards.com> is registered with Joker.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Joker.com
registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 11, 2002,
a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline of March 4, 2002 by which
Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via
e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@mennards.com by e-mail.
Having received no
Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were
used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted to the parties a
Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 11, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the
communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the
Forum has discharged its responsibility
under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ
reasonably available
means calculated to achieve actual notice to
Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may
issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules,
the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response
from Respondent.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant requests
that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The <mennards.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MENARDS mark.
Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered
and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not
submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant
has been doing business under the MENARDS mark since 1972. Complainant owns nine trade and service
marks in the United States in connection with a variety of products and
services. Complainant renewed the
MENARDS trademark in 1998 as registration number 2,191,048. Complainant is the 25th largest
privately held company in the United States and the third largest retail home
improvement store chain in the United States.
Complainant has established substantial goodwill in its MENARDS
mark. Complainant is also the
registrant of <menards.com> domain name.
Respondent
registered the <mennards.com> domain name on May 9, 2000. Respondent is the infamous cybersquatter
John Zuccarini, who has infringed on the goodwill of a large number of other
trademark holders
by registering the misspellings of their trademarks in the
past. Currently, the disputed domain
name features adult material and when the Internet user attempts to exit the
domain, other screens
pop-up preventing the user from exiting.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph
15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in
accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three
elements to obtain an order that
a domain name should be cancelled or
transferred:
(1) the domain name
registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(2) the Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant
has established through continuous use and trademark registration that it has
rights in the MENARDS mark.
Furthermore, Respondent's <mennards.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it merely adds an extra
"n" which is a common typographical
error. It has been established that misspellings of well-known marks do
not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing
similarity. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try
Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that
the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s
mark “State Farm”); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30,
2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
Respondent
has failed to come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain
name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore,
when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all
inferences in favor of Complainant. See Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)
(“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all
allegations of the Complaint”).
Respondent
is using the disputed domain name for a pornographic website. It has been found that this type of use does
not create rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See National Football League Prop., Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entm't. Co.,
D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain names "chargergirls.com"
and
"chargergirls.net" where the Respondent linked these domain names to
its pornographic website); see also
Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5,
2001) (finding that infringing on another's well known mark to provide a link
to a pornographic
site is not a legitimate or fair use).
There
is no evidence on the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish
that it is commonly known by the <mennards.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA
96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
because Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name or using
the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone,
D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to
demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net>
domain name since Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959).
Respondent
is intentionally diverting Internet users to its website for its own commercial
gain and is therefore not making legitimate
noncommercial, or fair use of the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kosmea Pty Ltd.
v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain
name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s
products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech.,
Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s
commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not
a legitimate use of the domain name).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent
has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names infringing upon the marks
of others; it has been established that
a pattern of such conduct is evidence
of bad faith. See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assoc.,
FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain
names which infringe upon
others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (Sept. 6,
2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent engaged in the practice of
registering domain names containing
the trademarks of others).
Respondent
has linked the confusingly similar <mennards.com> domain name to
an adult content website. This conduct
is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MatchNet plc. v.
MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association
of a confusingly similar domain name with pornographic website can
constitute
bad faith); see also Youtv, Inc.
v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain
and linked
his website to pornographic websites); see also CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000)
(finding that “this association with a pornographic web site can itself
constitute bad faith”).
Respondent's
registration and use of the <mennards.com> domain name is
typosquatting. This practice of “typosquatting” has been recognized as a bad
faith use of a domain name under
the UDRP. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini,
FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (awarding <hewlitpackard.com> a
misspelling of HEWLETT-PACKARD to Complainant); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (awarding <davemathewsband.com> and
<davemattewsband.com>, common misspellings
of DAVE MATTHEWS BAND to
Complainant).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the domain name <mennards.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice,
Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated:
March 12, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/373.html